Establishing construct validity of neuropsychological tests in cancer survivors

Abstract

Objective Cancer‐related cognitive impairments (CRCI) are frequently reported among cancer survivors, and attention is the most frequently assessed cognitive domain in CRCI. However, there is no consensus as to whether attention is impaired. We suggest that a major reason for this lack of agreement is a lack of construct validity for neuropsychological attention tests. We propose to assess the construct validity of neuropsychological attention tests with respect to experimental paradigms from cognitive psychology. Methods Self‐reported cancer survivors (N = 314) completed an online battery comprising six experimental attention paradigms and eight neuropsychological tests. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate the fit of five models derived from a general population sample (N = 636) in a previous study (M. Treviño, Cogn Res Princ Implic, in press). We then subjected the best‐fitting model to a measurement invariance analysis. Results The best‐fitting model was a six intercorrelated factor structure, comprising Capacity, Search, Digit Span, Arithmetic, Sustained Attention, and Flanker Interference factors. Configural and weak invariance held, indicating that the factor loadings were invariant across groups. Strong invariance, indicating that intercepts were also invariant, held except for the Approximate Number Sense test. Conclusions According to our factor model, Spatial Span and Digit Symbol Coding measure attentional capacity, while the Trail Making Test (A&B) and Letter Cancellation tests measure visual search ability. However, Digit Span and Arithmetic tests do not measure attention. We hope that these results will lead to better scientific models, better patient education, and, ultimately, improved outcomes for survivors.

Wellbeing and mental health outcomes amongst hospital healthcare workers during COVID-19

“…Its inclusion in this study’s psychometric test battery was to further explore its potential inverse relationship to mental health outcomes, though most studies in this area of the literature are primarily if not exclusively focused on mental health sequelae (depression, anxiety, PTSD symptomatology, insomnia) and not protective factors such as resilience. BRS validation studies have mostly included general population studies across (Coelho et al 2016; Kunzler et al 2018; Chmitorz et al 2018; Fung, 2020; Soer et al 2019), University students (Hidalgo-Rasmussen & Gonzalez-Betanzos, 2019), and those with varying medical conditions (Dixon et al 2015; Tansey et al 2016; Rodriguez-Rey et al 2016), however there is a limited but growing number of studies using the BRS to examine the role of resilience on healthcare worker wellbeing (Colville et al 2017; Awano et al 2020; Son et al 2022; Croghan et al 2021). In the original BRS validation study the unidimensional factor of BRS explained 55–67% of the variance over the four samples tested with principal component’s analysis.…”

Gait performance and prefrontal cortex activation during single and dual task walking in older adults with different cognitive levels

“…The TMT-A was used to assess attention and processing speed (Tangen et al, 2014;Treviño et al, 2021). Participants drew lines to connect numbers from 1 to 25 in an ascending sequence during the test.…”